Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on December 19, 2010, 11:05:09 pm
-
HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – The head of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church has been acquitted of a disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest while objecting a prayer being said at the beginning of a state Senate session in April.
When Senate President Colleen Hanabusa introduced a reverend to say the invocation, Mitch Kahle stood from his seat in the gallery of the Senate chambers and said, "I object. My name is Mitch Kahle and I object to this prayer on the grounds that it's a violation of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States. I object."
Kahle's protest lasted about seven seconds. Then he stopped talking and sat down. The Senate's Sergeant at Arms was determined to remove Kahle. When Kahle resisted he was forcefully removed and roughed up. The incident was caught by several video cameras including a camera belonging to Hawaii News Now.
"Then what they did to add insult to injury was, they arrested him for disorderly conduct," said William Harrison, Kahle's attorney.
"Their disorderly conduct (charge) was allegedly based upon his standing up and in the senate chambers and voicing his opinion, which he as a U.S. Citizen and a Hawaii citizen has a right to do," Harrison said.
Read the rest here --
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13569794
Better yet, discard the blahblah above and see what happened for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h7ekCD6uE4
I guess the good old first amendment can't hold a stick to something that's literally written in stone. If the result of sticking up for it is assault, battery, intimidation, and then being sued for "disorderly conduct", what's the point? America's pretty damn confusing sometimes! :doubt:
-
I skipped the supplementary reading and watched the video.
Words cannot express the intensity of my rage over what I just saw. I hope redemption comes swiftly.
-
Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!
Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.
-
Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.
I'd join you. And I know a bunch of people who would as well.
-
let the religion bashing begin. :rolleyes:
-
Chill, no one's religion bashing.
-
I could start, if it would help you be more comfortable with having a persecution complex while being a member of the majority.
-
let the religion bashing begin. :rolleyes:
Let a Muslim or Jew lead the prayer and you might have the slightest bit of a point.
Simple fact is that it is against the constitution for this to happen. But it is only Christians who are doing it.
-
Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!
Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.
Didn't someone try that, like, 400 years ago? Called it... Amerka or Umericil or something. Didn't work.
-
Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!
Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.
Yeah! It's almost like the council chair didn't step down afterwards!
EDIT: Doing a little research, precedent cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education) really don't have much to do with publicly endorsed prayer as much as spending money, so it could be argued either that this wasn't a violation on the portions of the first amendment, or that the context in this case doesn't really match that which was selectively incorporated. Either way, it's vague enough for stuff like this to happen and it's low level enough for it to be utterly ridiculous for federal agents to storm in and shut the place down. The problem, contrary to what I said above, is that the people that might be willing to stop it after something like this happens are more willing to leave after appropriate behavior takes place, which would be the two people speaking out.
Regardless, I'd be more concerned with the prayers the US Senate starts its sessions off with, it's just that they don't regularly let anyone wander in any time to those anymore.
-
Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution (no matter what a lower court judge has to say on the matter). The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion. This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.
-
Chill, no one's religion bashing.
speak for yourself
*bashes a religion with a stick*
-
-snip-
Actually I think this would be more of a separation of state and church sort-of-thing.
-
Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution. The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion. This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.
To be honest, I think it can be argued either way plenty well in this case. Regularly having a prayer before a council session could easily be taken as implicitly respecting an establishment of a religious status quo, which doesn't work well with the establishment clause. On the other hand, there is no explicit law be made and no explicit schedule that demands the prayer (as far as I know, at least). And then there's the ambiguity in with the establishment clause's incorporation into state level affairs, which could easily be interpreted as, by law, only the monetary endorsement or such explicit advocacy being against the law. In any case, I'm sure that if the law were as clear as you see it, there would be no arguing about it.
Actually I think this would be more of a separation of state and church sort-of-thing.
Where do you think separation of church and state comes from?
-
-snip-
Actually I think this would be more of a separation of state and church sort-of-thing.
Which is only codified in law in the First Amendment (OK, and partially in Article VI), and otherwise established by case law which references Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on the matter, as published in letters. But the sum total of all of that does not preclude the presence of a religious prayer in a house of government.
To be honest, I think it can be argued either way plenty well in this case. Regularly having a prayer before a council session could easily be taken as implicitly respecting an establishment of a religious status quo, which doesn't work well with the establishment clause. On the other hand, there is no explicit law be made and no explicit schedule that demands the prayer (as far as I know, at least). And then there's the ambiguity in with the establishment clause's incorporation into state level affairs, which could easily be interpreted as, by law, only the monetary endorsement or such explicit advocacy being against the law. In any case, I'm sure that if the law were as clear as you see it, there would be no arguing about it.
The trouble is that most people don't look at the word of law, including case law. The judge in question has established that her opinion is that the practice is barred under the Constitution, but that is one lower-court judge's non-binding opinion. The Supreme Court tends to see the matter through a historical, and much less rigid, lens. In other words, they read what the law says and provide a legal interpretation of it. The Reynolds and Everson cases establish a wall of separation between church and state (common phrase) as intent, but do not go so far as to prohibit non-mandatory religious activities from occurring in the context of state or federal affairs.
-
Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution (no matter what a lower court judge has to say on the matter). The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion. This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.
but, a prayer is is related to (or in other words in respect to) a religion, what they are doing cannot possibly be legal because for it to be legal there would have to be a law about it, and congress is the only body of the government that can write laws, and if it had written a law about this then that would have been a law respecting an establishment of religion, which is specifically not allowed by the first amendment.
-
this all reminds me of the time back in highschool where we were in the computer lav browsing the church of satan website, and someone informed the principal. 3 minutes later he was there and he seemed so annoyed that we were looking at religions websites that he completely missed the nearly pornographic images that the website had depicting then tenants and rituals involved in the church of satan. so we were sitting there with pictures of bare breasted goth women on the screen, and the principal hovering over us asking us to shut the computer down and go with him to the office. we all thought we would end up getting suspended, or several weeks of dentition and banishment form the computer lab. instead he gave us sodas and explained the separation of church and state, 2 minutes later we were back in the lab playing doom.
-
Y'know, while I'm normally one of the first people to get up in arms over the hypocrisy of religious antics, I have to point something out here.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The saying or reading of a religious prayer in a state assembly, or even a federal one, is not prohibited by the Constitution (no matter what a lower court judge has to say on the matter). The protester was legally and factually incorrect in his assertion. This does not, however, excuse the reaction after his protest.
but, a prayer is is related to (or in other words in respect to) a religion, what they are doing cannot possibly be legal because for it to be legal there would have to be a law about it, and congress is the only body of the government that can write laws, and if it had written a law about this then that would have been a law respecting an establishment of religion, which is specifically not allowed by the first amendment.
the way i understand it, the amendment actually protects the members of congress' right to free speech, and by extent religious expression. what they cant do is make a law that says jews need to pay twice the taxes, or that all citizens must register affiliation with a specific church. all members of congress are free to discuss matters pertaining to religion, so long as they dont write religious doctrine into law.
-
such as mandating a prayer as part of an official procedure.
-
but, a prayer is is related to (or in other words in respect to) a religion, what they are doing cannot possibly be legal because for it to be legal there would have to be a law about it, and congress is the only body of the government that can write laws, and if it had written a law about this then that would have been a law respecting an establishment of religion, which is specifically not allowed by the first amendment.
...no.
I read legislation for a living, so maybe I have a better grasp on how the wording actually functions, but I'll try to break it down. Here's the relevant part of the First Amendment, for reference:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Congress - Refers to both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
shall make no law - Shall / must are often legally interchanged. This clause prohibits Congress from enacting a law that does something.
respecting - The something. Respecting can be interpreted as concerning, enacting, codifying, or otherwise to do with.
an establishment of religion - Does not necessarily mean making a religion (although it can include it), but rather is referring to religion as an establishment, or a thing itself. So, Congress cannot establish laws concerning the creation of an official religion, nor which are derived from a particular form of religious practice. It does not prevent the exercise of religion by persons, but actually protects it:
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - Means what it says. Congress cannot prevent a person from freely exercising their religion, whatever it may be.
Law generally works through prohibitions rather than positive requirements. To say a prayer in a state or federal establishment, one does not require a law that says you can. Rather, to be prevented from doing it you require a law that says you cannot.
Nuke pretty much got it correct is his response. And, as I understand the prayer under discussion is not a legal part of official procedure but is a matter of policy or tradition (which I'm guessing is non-binding upon its members) it wouldn't be prohibited under the Constitution.
The only way the First Amendment enters into this case in the context of the State is if they had a formal, binding law that requires all members to participate in a religious prayer within the context of their official duties.
EDIT: The legal separation between religion and state is actually very poorly codified in the United States. Other countries (my own included) have left a much broader definition (2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion;) which allow the courts significantly more leeway in their interpretations and actually increases the strength of that law. The First Amendment actually handicaps itself by being too specific.
-
Hm. I would say that the prayer would have an undesirable 'chilling effect' upon those who do not pray, thus influencing their vote and restricting both their freedom of speech and their freedom to practice religion.
Suppose the Senate prayer urges "all present to act with the guidance of Jesus Christ Our Lord", and the subsequent vote is about teaching Creationism in public schools? Do you really believe that won't have an effect on senators standing up and speaking out in favor of secularism?
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.
-
Another way of looking at this: Imagine if the speaker got up to the podium and cited the Adhan of the Islamic faith. I would actually like to see that happen. The first time or so, the audience MIGHT find it interesting/culturally enriching, but most likely, societal bias and bigotry would prevail and he'd be removed, heckled, or otherwise interrupted immediately. Heck, I'll take it one step further -- the Adhan would actually be more appropriate(even though it's still inappropriate as a prayer), because when Christian culture is reinforced in government/legal situations like this, it serves to further marginalize actual minorities, be they Jews, Muslims or Hindus. The ironic thing here is - The lady preceding the reverend was Jewish. Oh, sweet, sweet irony.
Also, the guy was a baptist priest. With what I believe is over 36.000 sects of Christianity in America, many of which are mutually exclusive, with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell, isn't it inappropriate? One last thing: Likewise, having a Muslim prayer would be offensive because Islam is also splintered into several groups. So if you do the Sunni-specific prayer, you offend the Shias and the Ahmadiyyas.
By the way, activists who were assaulted are now launching a counter-suit, alleging, among about 50 charges, assault and battery: http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/Complaint_filed_11-30-10.pdf
Apparently, the policemen were not very nice. Who would have thought.
-
Hm. I would say that the prayer would have an undesirable 'chilling effect' upon those who do not pray, thus influencing their vote and restricting both their freedom of speech and their freedom to practice religion.
Suppose the Senate prayer urges "all present to act with the guidance of Jesus Christ Our Lord", and the subsequent vote is about teaching Creationism in public schools? Do you really believe that won't have an effect on senators standing up and speaking out in favor of secularism?
Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer.
I agree with your point, but the law, as it stands, does not prohibit the prayer is what I'm saying. People can argue effects until they're blue in the face, but unless there is a procedural or legal prohibition, all the well-reasoned arguments in the world are completely and utterly irrelevant.
Apparently, the policemen were not very nice. Who would have thought.
The rest of your post has no bearing on the legal argument at hand, but your irrational blanket hatred toward law enforcement is really starting to get on my nerves. Yes, these individuals were unprofessional in their conduct and outside of their grounds for reasonable arrests, but their poor choices are not a reflection of law enforcement as a whole. You do this every time an allegation arises (and a criminal complaint is nothing more than an allegation until proven in court), and it's getting old fast.
-
an individual can pray, a group of individuals can pray together, they can do it within a government building, but as a mater of procedure no government entity can do anything with a religious motive behind it. no one can do anything with respect to a religion. if they are conducting government business they cannot cram a prayer into it.
-
but as a mater of procedure no government entity can do anything with a religious motive behind it. no one can do anything with respect to a religion. if they are conducting government business they cannot cram a prayer into it.
That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion. That's not what the law says.
-
Maybe some day we will have a secular government that doesn't give tax breaks to religious institutions.
Hahaha, oh ****.
-
I actually remember another case where the announcer at a high school football game held a prayer before the game, but someone sued and it turns out that they can't do that. I can't remember what the name of the case was so maybe I'm misremembering the details too, but if prayer were outlawed there I don't see why it shouldn't be outlawed before a city council session. I'll see if I can find it in my notes later, I actually have an exam in a few minutes I should be studying for. :nervous: But other than this case I'm referring to, all other cases I've seen just don't mention this sort of thing. It's always where schools require bible reading that gets overturned, or Jehova's Witnesses that get tossed in prison for violating solicitation laws or something.
EDIT: it all seems like we know about the establishment clause pretty well, but we're forgetting about the Free Exercise clause, the six words after the establishment clause.
-
I actually remember another case where the announcer at a high school football game held a prayer before the game, but someone sued and it turns out that they can't do that. I can't remember what the name of the case was so maybe I'm misremembering the details too, but if prayer were outlawed there I don't see why it shouldn't be outlawed before a city council session. I'll see if I can find it in my notes later, I actually have an exam in a few minutes I should be studying for. :nervous: But other than this case I'm referring to, all other cases I've seen just don't mention this sort of thing. It's always where schools require bible reading that gets overturned, or Jehova's Witnesses that get tossed in prison for violating solicitation laws or something.
I remember this case(if it's the same one, might have happened more than once). If I remember correctly, after being ordered not to lead those prayers, they basically defied the order by doing the old "if you WANT to pray with us, you can do that.". Think about it -- He's not leading them in prayer, but IF they just happened to want to pray with him, they could do that.
-
I actually remember another case where the announcer at a high school football game held a prayer before the game, but someone sued and it turns out that they can't do that. I can't remember what the name of the case was so maybe I'm misremembering the details too, but if prayer were outlawed there I don't see why it shouldn't be outlawed before a city council session. I'll see if I can find it in my notes later, I actually have an exam in a few minutes I should be studying for. :nervous: But other than this case I'm referring to, all other cases I've seen just don't mention this sort of thing. It's always where schools require bible reading that gets overturned, or Jehova's Witnesses that get tossed in prison for violating solicitation laws or something.
I remember this case(if it's the same one, might have happened more than once). If I remember correctly, after being ordered not to lead those prayers, they basically defied the order by doing the old "if you WANT to pray with us, you can do that.". Think about it -- He's not leading them in prayer, but IF they just happened to want to pray with him, they could do that.
False. The school district was sued for actively endorsing student led prayers before football games. In Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe in 2000, the Supreme Court determined that the school endorsing the practice was in conflict with the 1st Amendment. That fact that it was student led and organized does not change the conflict. (Interesting side note, there's something like this going on in Tennessee right now, but no one cares enough to report it as big news).
The Hawaiian Senate being led in prayer by one of its own members in an unofficial, traditional fashion is in no way contrary to that ruling, which I assume is the case you were talking about.
tl;dr, it's not about the people praying, it's about the capacity in which they do so (sponsored or not).
-
That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion. That's not what the law says.
I must disagree with your assessment of the law.
-
That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion. That's not what the law says.
I must disagree with your assessment of the law.
Given that interpreting the law is apparently part of his job...
-
That is your (and as it happens, my personal) opinion. That's not what the law says.
I must disagree with your assessment of the law.
Given that interpreting the law is apparently part of his job...
He's entitled to disagree with my assessment all he likes. Hell, he can disagree with the Supreme Court's assessment too. Trouble is, disagreement or not, it's still what the law says and has been interpreted by the highest court in the land to mean.
Disagreeing with the law is kind of like a deer refusing to move out of the way of a delivery truck: sure, getting to the outcome might be a little messy, but the deer isn't coming out the winner.
-
And once again, we see the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause... yet another situation where they're both tugging in different directions.
-
with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell
wrong
And once again, we see the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause... yet another situation where they're both tugging in different directions.
Not really. As Ryan so eloquently put it, the Establishment Clause basically states, "Okay, the state can't impose religious beliefs on other people," and the Free Exercise Clause says, "Okay, you can worship whomever and however you want." There's not really any inherent tension between the two statements, though certain interpretations may generate such.
-
*plink plink*
Here's my 2 cents based on what I saw in the video.
I saw the Chairman or whatever of the Senate call the Senate to order. She then introduced a Baptist minister or pastor(we don't have priests) as the one who was going to say the Invocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invocation), which is a ritual prayer given by a private citizen in almost every body of leadership across the US, from court proceedings to congressional bodies. After the pastor stood to the podium and began his prayer the person in question was very rude and tried to interrupt and drown him out. The master at arms then did his job and removed the unruly party from the proceeding.
That's the objective actuality of what happened.
Here's what I saw subjectively.
I saw a pastor, a recognized man of the cloth, called before the Senate of the State of Hawaii to say a prayer to his god on behalf of the Senators and staff present at the proceeding that he grant the Senators and staff wisdom in the decisions they would make that day. He wasn't a representative of the government in any way shape or form, his appearance was as a friend of the Senate.
I also saw a young man who went overboard on his protest and was escorted out in the only way possible since he was obviously resisting. The disorderly conduct charge likely stemmed from his actions inside the Senate chamber, not what happened afterward. He did what he did to call attention to himself and his incorrect perception based on an incomplete understanding that the senate was promoting the Baptist faith as a state sponsored religion somehow. I'll say it again, the kid was a dumbass about how he went about having his say. There's a time and a place for everything. Standing up and yelling and trying to drown out another who was speaking prior to you in a public gather is rude and against the law in places like government assemblies.
Lastly, I will say that the Master at Arms and security staff were entirely wrong in how they handled the situation. They should also be held accountable for their actions and have disciplinary action levied against them.
-
He's entitled to disagree with my assessment all he likes. Hell, he can disagree with the Supreme Court's assessment too. Trouble is, disagreement or not, it's still what the law says and has been interpreted by the highest court in the land to mean.
Disagreeing with the law is kind of like a deer refusing to move out of the way of a delivery truck: sure, getting to the outcome might be a little messy, but the deer isn't coming out the winner.
or you know there is always the possibility that YOU are wrong and the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure. or that you simply are not listening to what I have been saying and are therefore arguing against a position I am not taking.
-
the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure
What you say, this is already true. It's not "official," it's tradition. You're arguing against yourself.
-
He's entitled to disagree with my assessment all he likes. Hell, he can disagree with the Supreme Court's assessment too. Trouble is, disagreement or not, it's still what the law says and has been interpreted by the highest court in the land to mean.
Disagreeing with the law is kind of like a deer refusing to move out of the way of a delivery truck: sure, getting to the outcome might be a little messy, but the deer isn't coming out the winner.
or you know there is always the possibility that YOU are wrong and the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure. or that you simply are not listening to what I have been saying and are therefore arguing against a position I am not taking.
where was this prayer mandated? where is it established as official procedure? no one is bible thumping on behalf of the government. banning people from praying in public is a HELL of a lot more against the first amendment than allowing them to do so.
-
Banning them from praying at an official meeting which can (and for that matter should) include people who aren't of that religion does break the rules about freedom of religious expression. Especially as we all know we're only ever going to hear Christian prayers (or at best ones from the Abrahamic religions).
Let me ask you this. If a Satanist wanted to say a prayer there, would you let him?
-
Banning them from praying at an official meeting which can (and for that matter should) include people who aren't of that religion does break the rules about freedom of religious expression. Especially as we all know we're only ever going to hear Christian prayers (or at best ones from the Abrahamic religions).
Let me ask you this. If a Satanist wanted to say a prayer there, would you let him?
i figure the blood sacrifice and the half nude chick they use as an altar, i dont think that would fly very well in congress.
-
Banning them from praying at an official meeting which can (and for that matter should) include people who aren't of that religion does break the rules about freedom of religious expression. Especially as we all know we're only ever going to hear Christian prayers (or at best ones from the Abrahamic religions).
Let me ask you this. If a Satanist wanted to say a prayer there, would you let him?
i could ASK him not to. but if that actually happened, yes. i would just leave. and no, i'm not just saying this because it's christians praying. i would expect nothing different in israel with jewish prayer or in any predominantly muslim country. if i was visiting any such occurance, i would sit quietly while they prayed and not get all snippy and up in arms about being offended.
-
Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!
Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.
I've seriously considered going to the moon and making my own country there...............
-
(http://th04.deviantart.net/fs6/300W/i/2005/019/e/0/Mooninites_Wallpaper_by_BiggStankDogg.jpg)
-
This thread: :lol:
-
Banning them from praying at an official meeting which can (and for that matter should) include people who aren't of that religion does break the rules about freedom of religious expression. Especially as we all know we're only ever going to hear Christian prayers (or at best ones from the Abrahamic religions).
Let me ask you this. If a Satanist wanted to say a prayer there, would you let him?
i could ASK him not to. but if that actually happened, yes. i would just leave. and no, i'm not just saying this because it's christians praying. i would expect nothing different in israel with jewish prayer or in any predominantly muslim country. if i was visiting any such occurance, i would sit quietly while they prayed and not get all snippy and up in arms about being offended.
But many muslim countries use that religion as a centrepiece of their legal and governmental system, and the prayers are usually a way of driving that home, Christian, Muslim or any other kind of prayer at the start of a Government hearing, as was mentioned earlier, puts 'primers' in the air for the way people react and what sort of thinking is 'expected' of them. I grew up watching an America that used to thrive on that seperation move, over the last 25 years to the point where it looks for excuses to break it whenever possible, it's quite depressing to be honest.
It'd be like trying to open Parliament with a football match because 'everyone likes football'. That's great, but what's it got to do with politics, and why assume the majority is everyone? If one MP turned around and said they didn't like football, and got voted out because of it, it'd look as silly as it was.
-
with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell
wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
So, not wrong!
-
It'd be like trying to open Parliament with a football match because 'everyone likes football'. That's great, but what's it got to do with politics, and why assume the majority is everyone? If one MP turned around and said they didn't like football, and got voted out because of it, it'd look as silly as it was.
except to that one MP and the hockey fans he was the sole representative for.
-
Heh, to be honest, if people want to vote for a representative because he or she is religious, or atheist, or hates football, or whatever, that's up to the voters, I suppose the point I'm getting at is that those personal beliefs and observances should be kept out of the mechanism of government because it blurs the line between Objectivity and Subjectivity :)
-
(http://th04.deviantart.net/fs6/300W/i/2005/019/e/0/Mooninites_Wallpaper_by_BiggStankDogg.jpg)
With World War 3 around the corner, you'll be thanking my future success.
-
with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell
wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
So, not wrong!
Heaven will be awesome, if only because all you fanatic athetists aren't there.
-
(http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/i_like_where_thread_going.jpg)
-
or you know there is always the possibility that YOU are wrong and the law does NOT say that a law making body can mandate an official prayer as part of its official procedure. or that you simply are not listening to what I have been saying and are therefore arguing against a position I am not taking.
I already covered this. In general practice, laws in common law countries function by prohibiting certain things, not by conveying positive traits for what one is permitted to do. There are exceptions of course. However, the wording of the First Amendment and the subsequent Supreme Court interpretations of it [Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) applies here] support a prohibitive stance on the establishment clause.
In short, it prohibits Congress from enacting laws based upon religion. That's it. As official (or traditional) procedure is not established in law, and there is nothing to indicate there is a law on the books that mandates participation is such practices, the establishment clause does not apply. There is a much stronger argument that the freedom of expression clause is applicable, however, as those who wish to do so can participate in the tradition freely and those who do not are not required to do so.
I am reading what you are saying quite closely. What you are saying is displaying a significant lack of understanding of how common law works.
-
how is the organization, function and procedure of US governmental bodies defined? is it not by law?
-
Heaven will be awesome, if only because all you fanatic athetists aren't there.
I'm not a fanatic atheist, I'm a militant pacifist.
-
Heaven will be awesome, if only because all you fanatic athetists aren't there.
I'm not a fanatic atheist, I'm a militant pacifist.
:p :lol:
-
how is the organization, function and procedure of US governmental bodies defined? is it not by law?
Generally speaking, frameworks are set out in law, while specific procedural "housekeeping" is a matter of policy and/or tradition. For example, the Constitution sets out the structure and function of Congress, but the way Congress does business on a daily basis is a matter of policies and traditions they have adopted over the course of time. Legislative bodies are very similar to the court system in this way; there are very few actual laws (or case law) that govern how procedure runs in a court room - most procedure is a matter of tradition that has evolved over time.
I have no specific information on the Hawaii State body and how it's procedural rules are set out. It is unlikely that its "housekeeping" procedures (of which the opening of a session would be a part) are set out in law. If their procedures are set out in law, then they would be subject to the establishment clause, as I previously indicated (but only insofar as such laws made participation mandatory and infringed on the free expression clause).
-
Gotta love the hypocritical and silly USA, unless you're a Christian, the constitution doesn't apply!
Makes me want to go make my own country, a country that actually follows its own rules, and is actually free.
I've seriously considered going to the moon and making my own country there...............
http://www.amazon.com/Moon-Harsh-Mistress-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0312863551
-
with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell
wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
So, not wrong!
Heaven will be awesome, if only because all you fanatic athetists aren't there.
id rather go to hell than spend all eternity with a bunch of bible thumpers.
-
And once again, we see the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause... yet another situation where they're both tugging in different directions.
Not really. As Ryan so eloquently put it, the Establishment Clause basically states, "Okay, the state can't impose religious beliefs on other people," and the Free Exercise Clause says, "Okay, you can worship whomever and however you want." There's not really any inherent tension between the two statements, though certain interpretations may generate such.
I disagree: I think there most definitely is inherent tension, because there are reasonable interpretations of the clauses that can conflict. If there weren't, we wouldn't be having this debate (in various variations) every three months for the past 230 years.
-
Why.
Where is the tension? Elaborate please.
-
Why.
Where is the tension? Elaborate please.
I thought it was pretty clear, but apparently it isn't. :p
Super-simple contrived example: having a public religious invocation as part of legislative proceedings (the issue at hand) seems to me to be a great example of where the tension is. Free Exercise clause, interpreted broadly, says that if the members of the legislature all want to have a prayer as part of opening ceremonies, there shouldn't be anything to prohibit them. Establishment Clause, interpreted broadly, would prohibit this as being a tacit endorsement of either a specific religion or religion in general. Ban it and you're arguably constraining the exercise of religion. Allow it and you're arguably establishing religion.
Frankly, I'm not good at discussing this sort of thing. Here's a better discussion of the issue: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-01/13-free-exercise-of-religion.html
Some key lines:
The relationship between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses varies with the expansiveness of interpretation of the two clauses. In a general sense both clauses proscribe governmental involvement with and interference in religious matters, but there is possible tension between a requirement of governmental neutrality derived from the Establishment Clause and a Free-Exercise-derived requirement that government accommodate some religious practices.
Some more discussion of the issue (although a bit more muddied: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm). For even more discussion, Google it or ask your local constitutional law professor how many different approaches have been tried to reconciling the two clauses.
Really, this is why we have judges: to reconcile the problems that arise when laws conflict with each other.
-
Spoon/Nemesis/Mongoose/Nuke: Cut it out. You're not contributing. I'll get Dekker for a splitlock if you keep it up.
-
Spoon/Nemesis/Mongoose/Nuke: Cut it out. You're not contributing. I'll get Dekker for a splitlock if you keep it up.
stop trolling
-
with Catholicism for example saying that all non-Catholics will go to hell
wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus
So, not wrong!
"The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned."
lrn2rdownlnk :p
Edit: Sorry, didn't see the warning. I'm done.
-
Spoon/Nemesis/Mongoose/Nuke: Cut it out. You're not contributing. I'll get Dekker for a splitlock if you keep it up.
Yes mom.